@TSaylors I have a problem with your statement. It takes two to make a child and both adults are responsible for birth control. If there is an arrangement for the man to walk away without responsibility then there is another problem. The child will grow and ask questions and that arrangement may not work out so well if the man now has a life that a previous child may complicate.

that is a very touchy and personal situation and i'm sure it varies wildly from case to case. not touching that with a 10 foot pole, hope i never have to go through it.

Yeah, that kind of shit is a huge problem and very difficult to legally address without a lie detector or something, the sort of thing king solomon was supposedly good at

@betpaq I now have a problem with your statement. There have been instances of men having their semen stolen in various ways. If a woman is pregnant by an unwilling man, and said man has no choice in terminating or carrying the pregnancy to term, why would he not at least have the option to divorce himself completely from the situation? Women should have complete autonomy, but men should have none?

@JeffMurray

Other than at a fertility facility, please give examples of semen stolen from men.

On the flip side of your statement, what responsibility does the man have when rape, incest, pedophilia, and sexual abuse are perpetrated on females. Don't say the law as we all know until recently the law has failed women miserably.

In consensual sex, it is the responsibility of "both" parties to provide birth control. If a man chooses to go natural then he chooses the consequences.

Historically men have been able to walk away from their responsibilities without consequences. Have you heard the term, "Deadbeat Dad" that turn of phrase didn't become well know because of a "one" of".

@betpaq There are a lot of examples and plenty of court cases to go along with them. One case involved a wife giving a used condom from her husband to a friend who used it to get pregnant. She then sued for child support AND WON. The court ruled that, regardless of how the semen ended up in the friend, once the man made the deposit he didn't have an expectation to reclaim it. There are cases of ejaculate from oral sex getting saved and used to impregnate. But that doesn't really even matter. We are discussing what should be, not what is, and there is the possibility of men being forced into genetic fatherhood.

Again, discussing instances where the law failed is not the focus of this discussion. Obviously, if there is a law on the books that a rapist should be financially responsible for offspring, and then wasn't forced to do so, that's not something we can solve by saying the law should be followed. We already agree on that.

As for both parties being responsible for birth control. That's a nice soundbite. But completely unrealistic and one of the vehicles by which women can get away with stealing semen. I have never been with a woman who didn't prefer to not use a condom during sex. I have only been in monogamous sexual relationships with women I loved and trusted. So if that woman told me she was on the pill and/or wouldn't carry a pregnancy to term and that she didn't want me to use a condom, what do you think would happen to the relationship if I essentially told her I didn't believe her or trust her and would only sleep with her with barrier protection? A step further, what if a man DID still use a condom that had a hole poked in it? The man is not "choosing" the consequences, they are inflicted on him because, as we all agree, he has ZERO say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated.

Do you know what happens to "Deadbeat Dads"? It is definitely not consequence-free. There was a guy that played cards at a local shop that had to get a ride everywhere because the state revoked his license for owing back child support. Anyway, we are again discussing individual instances of someone circumventing existing laws which we both agree shouldn't happen and is not the focus of this discussion. The question is, since a man has no say in whether or not a pregnancy is terminated, why shouldn't he be afforded at least the ability to terminate his rights and responsibilities?

@JeffMurray

The courts may not always be right, some men are deadbeat dad's, some women are thieves, some men are abusive. Some men want the right to insist on an abortion. Some men want the rights to prevent an abortion. We can agree on that.

When it comes down to it, it is about the child's rights and well being once it is born. The parents played footies and the child had no say. You don't penalize the child for the irresponsible behavior of the parents. You penalize the parents.

@betpaq Who said anything about penalizing the child? Women can, and do, have children as single parents all the time (e.g. they want a child, but haven't found the right man, so they artificially inseminate or adopt if possible). So regardless of how the woman got pregnant, if she wants to have the child and the man does not, she can just have it on her own. Surely you're not suggesting women aren't able to raise children on their own?? Cause saying the man has to contribute (financially or otherwise) or it's punishing the child sure sounds like you're saying women are incapable.

Also, if the semen was stolen, how is that "the irresponsible behavior" of the father?

@JeffMurray

I've answered your question and you know where I stand and you have indicated where you stand on this issue. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it for we are at an impasse. No harm, no foul. Okay?

@Betty You did not answer the question, so I cannot agree to disagree at this point. You have painted yourself into a corner. Saying it's punishing the child if the father doesn't contribute is tantamount to saying women are incapable of effectively raising children without some kind of help from a man. You are free to retract that statement if you'd like, but then you no longer have an objection to my original claim. This is not an impasse, this is your failure to support your argument effectively.

@JeffMurray

At no time have I insinuated that women are incapable of raising children on their own.
A child has the right to knowledge of the family and medical history of both parents.
Birth control is the responsibility of both parties involved.
When an unplanned pregnancy occurs both parties should have a conversation about what they want. The choice to abort or not is between the woman and her doctor.
Once a child is born they share half of a parents DNA, you can't divorce that. A child "should" not be penalized for the actions of the parents.

In consensual sex and a child is "born" and the mother chooses to keep that child then arrangement must be agreed upon. There are different kinds of agreements. Financial, physical involvement, or information that the child will need as they grow up or a combination of two or all. A child will want to know if there are half-siblings, grandparents, aunts/uncles, and cousins and should not be denied that information.

This is where I stand on consensual sex that results in an unplanned pregnancy. Criminal actions are a completely different conversation.

@Betty So why exactly did you object to my proposition that men should be allowed to sign away all rights and responsibilities for a child they don't want because they have exactly ZERO PERCENT say in whether or not the fetus is aborted or not?

@JeffMurray

It is not just the man's choice to do so unless the mother agrees to it. The rights and needs of the child must be addressed. When a man walks away and wants nothing to do with the child personally he can't take half of that family history with him. The child has a right to it. His or her heritage, medical history, and family connections at the very least.
No man should have the right to force a woman to have a medical procedure.

Eventually, technology will advance to the point that when a woman refuses to have a child and the man wants the child then the fetus could be transferred to an artificial womb and the father can take custody of the child, then the mother must provide for the child under the conditions of an agreement they forge to provide for the rights of the child.

@Betty So you're saying that a man SHOULD be allowed to sign away rights and responsibilities IF he provides family history information?!? What if he was orphaned and grew up in foster care and doesn't know any of it? You realize that there are tons of humans in the world that have zero family history knowledge, right?

@JeffMurray

That is a different discussion. We weren't talking about orphans.

Yes, men can sign away their rights under certain conditions as I've listed.

@Betty I didn't say sign away rights. I said all rights and responsibilities, and the only condition should be that he doesn't get a say in whether to abort the pregnancy.
And if you really wanted a disclosure clause added in that made the man provide family history he was aware of or had access to, I'd be totally fine with that. I think we're closing the gap on this, and you wanted to agree to disagree.

The only time the father should be asked to help out is if the mother has no one. Not being married is always going to complicate sexual behavior and pregnancy. So, both be informed about contraception. It's also being unfair to the birthed child that is rejected.

Great post.

I agree with the majority of what you are saying but, what if that child was going to have a life of pain and suffering? You'd have to be pretty fucked up to let that happen?

@bryanthetrumpet Not sure what there is to disagree on. I'm definitely a "quality of life" person vs merely being born to exist.
If you're alluding to really late term abortions I certainly don't support giving birth knowing there would be no quality of life.
There are a litany of reasons someone can find themselves in the position to be considering/forced into a super late term abortion. Look at some who never knew they were pregnant to begin with- it happens. Some women have wonky cycles, extremely overweight, spotting, the list of circumstances that would put someone in that position are endless.
Too damned many people on this spinning ball anyway. I'm almost to the point of opinion if one doesn't have all ducks in a row and set it's immoral to have a child to begin with. There are no guarantees in life but try to stack the deck in the child's favor.
Also there are women, and I know them, who thought they wanted kids but those very necessary hormones did not kick in and the child suffered as a result.

Apologies for the rant and maybe veering off topic there. I'm a "no questions asked, on demand" for this life choice.

@jorj Perhaps you aren't aware not all parts of the country make the procedure easily accessible. Facilities that will perform late term are even fewer and farther in between, potentially endangering women's lives as a result.

Not sure why the caps are necessary.

Until women no longer have to be concerned about restrictions on the right to do what THEY CHOOSE concerning THEIR bodies there is indeed need for validation legally. People seem to forget that it's still to this day forever coming up in the courts.

THAT'S WHY WOMEN KEEP HAVING TO BRING UP RIGHT TO BODY AUTONOMY.

@jorj @jorj When men with your mindset "nut up" and get off their donkeys to shoulder more of the contraceptive/reproductive burden physically and financially(beyond condoms!) then you may have a leg to stand on, until then your hobby horse is obvious, you or someone "scratched" yourself on someone and it ended up in a live birth someone hadn't bargained for. TFB, that does not negate the issue that women shoulder 99% of the physical and financial burden of whether to carry a child or not to term.

Corpses still have more rights over their body than women in too many places for "the greatest nation on earth".

@jorj i thought it a legitiment arguement; and i'm not an 'emotional female' or even a particulary empathetic person but i smell bullshit from a safe distance ?

@bryanthetrumpet not necessarily the case. My grandson was diagnosed with neurofibromatosis but didn't know till he was 5 years old. But now that we know, he'll have a choice when he gets a little older.

That means "AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT THE FATHER"?

@DUCHESSA If I were the father then it would affect me.

I would not walk away.

@El-loco Here we are not talking about "WALKING AWAY" BUT ABOUT THE WOMAN decision TO ABORT...even if the father doesn't walk away.

@DUCHESSA I am too drunk to use logic. If you were carrying my child I would not ask you to abort. I would ask you to accept my help and respect for what would not be a pleasant process. I would only ASK you not to abort.

@El-loco The fact is you wouldn't even have the right to ask...anything. Trust me,, the abortion process -as unpleasant / dangerous as it is- never is as UNPLEASANT / DANGEROUS as nine months of changes and risks are.

@DUCHESSA I do not claim the right to ask anything. I only tell you what I would do. The choice would be yours. I accept that the father has no right over the existence of his offspring even if he is prepared to do right by them. I accept it, but I don't have to like it.

@El-loco What you would do is irrelevant....and whether you like or not her decision is also irrelevant.

@DUCHESSA I find it confusing to have a fight with someone I never met and will never meet.OK, I get it, I'm irrelevant.

@El-loco A fight? I believe you are really confused. I only stated that you -or any other man- lccks the right to opine / say anything on abortion....even if the man is the "FATHER".

@DUCHESSA I agree with a lot of what you say, but this line in the sand is confusing to me. Men have no right to opine on the subject, what, because they don't have the ability to get pregnant? Does that mean barren women, old women, and women born without a uterus/have had a hysterectomy also have no right to opine?

You realize that the beginning of your comment and the end appear to have been written by two different people? You completely contradicted yourself...

Fair enough JeffMurray though I don't believe I contradict myself. There are limitations on all freedoms that we have.

But, I failed to properly explain my point of view. At 21 weeks, I don't see it as an abortion. It would be a birth if the fetus could survive outside the womb. At that point we're no longer talking about a cluster of cells or a zygote the size of an acorn but rather an organism that could potentially live on its own.

There HAS to be some cut-off point or am I wrong? Should an abortion be allowed at 9 months while the mother is going into labor? What about once the baby is outside the mother but still connected by the umbilical cord? Logically, there must be a point that we can agree it would be wrong to terminate the pregnancy. I chose 21 weeks based on current medical advances that give a fetus born at that point a reasonable likelihood of survival.

@Charles1971 "I don't believe that I nor anyone else, including the government or religion, has any say in the medical decisions of another person."
"I do think that abortions should only take place before a point in which the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb"

Those two statements are contradictory. Either no one should have a say in another person's medical decisions, or there is a time when one can be told they can't make the medical decision they wish. They cannot coexist. So when you say there are limitations on freedoms (like how you can't scream fire in a crowded building) because your freedom will infringe on the freedoms of others, you are essentially saying that taking away the freedom for a woman to abort after 21 weeks is to protect the freedom of the person inside her? I believe the legal cutoff is when the offspring takes a breath. The laws may be location dependant, I'm not sure. But once there is no more additional risk to the mother to carry than to abort, like if the baby is already out of her just connected by the cord, and the cord has to be cut either way, killing the baby on the table would be an obvious over-stepping of the argument for a woman's right to choose.

But let's use your 21 week rule for argument's sake. What steps as a society are we willing to take to protect a fetus a woman wants to abort that we won't let her because it's after the cut off? Can we stop her from riding rollercoasters? How about smoking, drinking, or taking fetotoxic (legal) drugs? Can we lock her in a padded room? Force her to get, or stop her from getting a c-section whenever she wants? (I mean, if she's told she can't have an abortion because the fetus could survive on its own, can she just say, "Well, then, cut it out of me." ) If she goes on a hunger strike, can we tie her down and feed her through a tube?

@JeffMurray... I answered your question. I didn't come here to argue abortion. I've done this before and it's an exhausting and fruitless debate. I told you my view. You don't have to like it.

@Charles1971 Is not that I don't like your view it's that you are not supporting it. If you want to have opinions that are contradictory and ill supported, that's fine. Lots of people do. But if you wish to actually examine your beliefs the way you probably did regarding religion, I'd be more than happy to bounce ideas back and forth and challenge you on some things. Good luck either way.

@JeffMurray My point is that although I support the freedom of choice, as with all freedoms, there are limitations. I strongly support 1st Amendment rights, but freedom of speech and expression have limitations. And yes, if those limitations are violated then it will be the government and the law that will be the authority that will step in put a halt to such violations.

And thus, even with the freedom of choice over abortion, there should be limitations. You stated "I believe the legal cutoff is when the offspring takes a breath." My view is that the cutoff is when the offspring CAN take a breath (even with assistance) and live.

@Charles1971 That's fine that that's your position, but you should definitely not describe yourself pro-choice, as you are actively advocating a partial ban on abortion.

@Charles1971 Also, it's disingenuous to try to compare my definition of when the baby takes a breath with yours as if they're just different points on the same scale, they are not. To claim that they are is like saying you can abort an air strike after you've already dropped the bombs.

@JeffMurray... Then I suppose I don't believe in free speech since I think there should be limitations on what is allowed. I do not think that I should be legally allowed to put up a billboard near your house that says "Jeff Murray is a rapist and a child molester."

Personally, it just seems like you are trying to be argumentative. And your air strike/bomb analogy is silly and makes no sense. And I think breathing is actually important. It tends to be one of the hallmarks that distinguishes the living from the dead.

@Charles1971 Correct, you don't believe in free speech. Neither do I. And if you want to not believe in a woman's freedom to choose as well, that's up to you. And you can call it argumentative, but I have a problem seeing someone label himself as one thing when he's clearly not. Furthermore, because there are other people and factors in the 'obtaining an abortion' freedom, it is not on the same footing as the freedom of speech. By putting the 21-week restriction on it, you necessarily also put other restrictions in place as well. If you don't know what TRAP laws are, I beg you to go read about them. Seriously, if you read about them and don't agree that if legislators were doing shit like that to subvert your rights you'd be outraged, I will shut the fuck up after this post. They use what rational people like you feel are fair, common-sense restrictions to completely deny a woman her rights. One example is when pro-life organizations set up "abortion clinics" in areas that have 21-week laws on the books, only to lure women in and lie to them about the reason they need to postpone their procedure (most often they "have a fever" ). They string them along until their 21-week mark and then the woman is no longer legally allowed to get an abortion. So no, restrictions on free speech are not the same as restrictions on abortion. Not allowing you to scream "fire" in a crowded building doesn't get parlayed into you not being allowed to scream "fire" while playing Call of Duty.

And yes, my analogy was correlative. You comparing 'baby took a breath' with 'fetus could potentially breathe and live outside of the womb' as points on a 'when you can abort scale' is analogous to comparing 'bombs could drop' and 'bombs already dropped' as both being on a 'when you can abort scale'.

If only that were true. There are TONS of restrictions, and in some parts of the country for certain individuals a complete ban on abortion.

@JeffMurray ?! Yikes; really Jeff? A complete ban? For whom?

@BobFenner In 26 states there are laws that require that permission be granted by one or both parents or some other authority figure for any woman that's not of a certain age. If any of these young ladies happen to be in a family that doesn't believe in abortion, they are essentially banned from having one. There are 5 states that have only one abortion clinic in the entire state, and 24 states have less than 5 in the entire state. For the young and/or financially disadvantaged this is essentially also a ban, especially when you couple it with time restrictions and "fake" clinics that are set up by pro-life groups with the sole purpose of prolonging the time before a woman gets her appointment to make it extend past legal constraints. Seriously look up TRAP laws. This is a seriously fucked up country in this regard for how first-world and progressive we claim to be.

@JeffMurray Ah yes; the under-aged. Chronologically but not physiologically, behaviorally...

@BobFenner Not all of them are under age. I mentioned how many types of women can be robbed of their autonomy. Regardless, how does it possibly matter what avenue someone uses to take away a woman's access to abortion?

@JeffMurray Ugh... "If you would be free, help others be free"... Oh yes, including the half of the population that are female.

@BobFenner I don't understand your point...

@JeffMurray The finer at times balance... paradox of individual freedom and the desires of society. This line/balance is in need of periodic review; with women of "age" being shortchanged currently. I would have all be freer.

@BobFenner Okay, I'm not understanding you. It's reading like an ancient proverb or something. You seemed to take issue with me claiming some women have had their autonomy taken away because of the way it was taken away. I asked why that mattered, and I haven't been able to glean a response out of anything you've said since.

@JeffMurray I don't dispute your claim; the fact of lost autonomy. "It"matters as all deserve self determination.

I am pro-choice. IAW, even in a situation such as the one you describe to abort (or not) should be the woman's decision.

@DUCHESSA Not when the NHS have to pay for the care for the child's entire life.

@PeterMetcalfe1 With your way of thinking any baby who is born with a condition no detected during pregnancy should be eliminated? Sounds Nazi to me.

@DUCHESSA that's not necessarily a Nazi view. There were other vile, psychopathic despots who shared that view.

@JimG Well, to me his comment was Nazi

@DUCHESSA I call it compassion. I wouldn't want anyone do everything for me and I'm sure you wouldn't either. I would rather not exist, and if I was aware of what was going on I would be angry for allowing me live.

@PeterMetcalfe1 I assure you if what you describe was the true...you will be hoping for those medical advances that have solved many of the birth defects some people suffered

@PeterMetcalfe1 Again, it's not within your purview to make that choice. They used to say that about fetuses with Down Syndrome, and they are the sweet, happy, lovable children

@TheoryNumber3 Yes but they still require care for their entire life, which is my point.

@PeterMetcalfe1 And in your original post you mentioned NHS..........Are you aware that this child's parent have contributed to said NHS?

What other info. than "she wants to abort" does she need?

@DUCHESSA how much of a toll the abortion could take on her mentally and physically. It should not be a quick decision. Was she raped? Was she the victim of incest? One in three women will be molested during her lifetime. There is a great deal she should know before making such an earth shattering decision.

@IAmLove Victim od rape, incest,...or simply she doesn't want to have a kid....Make no difference, the only thing that counts us she wants to abort and the physical risks.
Trust me, the "emotional aspect" is so overrated that is laughable.

@DUCHESSA No, it isn’t

@IAmLove When a woman decides to abort....the emotional side is not what she thinks about. Trust me, I have spoken to many and the only thing they said was "What a relief!!

@kozmic Thank you por proving my point. Eventually, we will become a society that minds its own business.

@kozmic what a horrible experience. This is what religion does. There is no reason you should have been shamed. What about the child’s father. No doubt he was patted on the back. Hope you are ok now.

@IAmLove It's only a very few patients who regard the choice as "earth shattering." Trust me on this one...I see it every week.

Any man that thinks a woman should protect his rights is not thinking straight. If a man does not want a child then it is (his) responsibility to have birth control. Men that want to distance themselves believing it is the woman's job to provide protection are not fair-minded men.

@jorj As I said above, if you want to be 100% sure you're not creating a baby, get a vasectomy. Then you can have your fun and shoot blanks.

Have you ever tried to get a hysterectomy? (I have, and have heard a while range of reasons why I can't have one). Drs tell females, even single females that they won't perform this procedure all the time, for reasons like, "What if you meet a man in the future who wants children?" Thereby giving some future hypothetical boyfriend/husband more control over that woman's uterus than herself.

Trials for hormone based contraceptives for males get halted before they can be assessed as safe enough for the market because the subjects cannot tolerate the side effects of the hormones, similar side effects to those caused by the hormonal contraceptives women have been putting up with for decades. Perhaps males would try to tolerate the side effects more if they were the ones risking their lives and health by carrying and delivering babies?

And, on that note, it is statistically safer to abort than attempt to go full term and deliver, so isn't this -abortion on request- the most moral medical option for women, especially women who do not (for whatever reason) want to be pregnant and deliver a baby?

Western medicine is disappointingly male centric. You just have to look at things like treatments for erectile dysfunction being available before the size and shape of the clitoris was even discovered to see the imbalance. Also, even in countries with healthcare that is free at the point of access, women don't get decent and dignified post natal care. Just look at the rates of labour induced prolapses that don't get any treatment at all.

The above is just a snippet of the reason why I think abortions should be legal and available for women at any time. I doubt you'll change your mind because... But seriously, try being female and trying your 'solution' of getting a hysterectomy. (This is also an incredibly invasive procedure compared to most abortions, but you'll never have to worry about either issue so you can just suggest whatever wildly impractical thing you like and if women aren't doing that, feel superior and 'right' that they brought their 'situations' -pregnancies that take two but only one has all the responsibility- upon themselves.)

You get a tubal ligation. No hysterectomy unless worse is going on.

And who told you it is used as birth control? Only an idiot would do that.

I actually do know an idiot who has before. But shes an idiot so...::

Again, this is a lie and the numbers of women who use abortion as birth control are very low but way blown out of proportion by Pro-Lifers. Think about it, if a lot of women did get an abortion every time they got pregnant and didn’t bother with birth control there would be women walking around who’ve had 20 or 30 abortions. Abortions take a toll on a women’s body each and every procedure that’s done. Which makes it unlikely that there are just tons of women out there getting abortions once a year. More propaganda by the Lifers. But aside from all that, it’s still none of your business what another women chooses to do with her body. Period.

My body, my business!

@Stressmonster Indeed she is.

Guess what? Call me infanticide as much as you wish....Abortion is OK. read about Iceland on this issue.

If a woman becomes pregnant at the wrong time / she doesn't want to be a mother / her health is in danger...or the "baby" she carries is not normal and she wants to abort...is her right and privilege. No doctor / husband / boyfriend / friend / relative has any say on her decision.

The vast majority of abortions could be prevented. We actually can stop the sperm and egg coming together. Most of the reasons you have stated are where abortion began. Now the vast majority are just about the comfort of the parent. If human life is sacred, then this is wrong. The only way to get around it is to say that human life is not sacred. Then of course, infanticide is not wrong either.

@noseenobelieve Sure, prevention is the way to go. Makes no sense to risk the woman's life. Now, if the prevention methods fail and the woman doesn't want to be a mother there is nobody on this world that has the right to tell her no to abort..

@noseenobelieve Comfort? Do you have any idea what a grueling experience it is to have to make that decision? Women think about that unborn child for the rest of their lives. Not to mention the pain of the procedure itself. Unless you have a uterus, you have no opinion.

Why don't you preach in your church, entertain the half wits!

@DUCHESSA, @TheoryNumber3 This means that while people appeal to the outliers, convenience abortions are the most common.

@noseenobelieve Remember. What you describe as "convenience abortion" i do as "the right of a woman no to be imposed what she doesn't care / want / like / need...and I am not the only one who thinks this way.

When a woman is forced to deliver the kid she doesn't want.......trust me, the only one suffering is the child and for the rest of his/her life. I know it very well.

Nobody is talking about late term abortion....which should be ALSO LEGAL when the life of the woman is at risk. Remember, the woman always comes first.

Exactly. You've just provided some context that is NOT in the question! Which was my point.

What I provided is not "context" but logic. The life of the woman is the only one that matters.

"Nobody is talking late term abortion", "the life of the woman is at risk". You're jumping to several conclusions that aren't even mentioned in the original post, but are using them as "facts". I didn't respond in order to have a debate - I was simply pointing out that the question could have been clearer. Anyway, I've had enough of your preaching.

@DUCHESSA Why only when the mother's life is at risk? Who determines that? Possibly a man who you said has no right to opine? Stick to your guns woman! (What if said woman was actually held prisoner in a basement and was raped for years on end. Manages to escape her captor in her third trimester. If she is at no risk of death, are you saying she shouldn't be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?!?)

@JeffMurray Who decides the woman life is at risk? A medical professional, guy. About your example: Yesssssssssss, no woman should be forced to deliver a baby she didn't / doesn't want....and I doubt any intelligent woman will want a child from a mentally disturb man.

@DUCHESSA So I again ask, why would you say, "when the life of the woman is at risk"? If a man, even a medical professional guy, has no right to opine as you stated earlier, why should he have any say or control in any way whether or not a woman can get an abortion? Most everything else you've said on multiple posts seems to claim you're pro-choice 100%, and then this. I don't get it. ANY conditions or restrictions means you are not actually pro-choice because any of them can be used to deny a woman her autonomy.

If she wants no to be pregnant there is only one choice: Abortion.

Some stupid people say "Give the baby for adoption." They don't realize the woman doesn't want to carry the belly....they think what the woman doesn't want is to rise the kid.

@DUCHESSA I think that’s exactly what it is.

@FreethoughtKaty I didn't want the belly....and much less rising the brat.

OHHHH...the pro-life people will tell you ''there's always adoption." Of course, adoption rates are abysmal but....

OHHHH...the pro-life people will tell you ''there's always adoption." Of course, adoption rates are abysmal but....

OHHHH...the pro-life people will tell you ''there's always adoption." Of course, adoption rates are abysmal but....

See, what you see as human life I see as nothing but an embryo that can -and in many instances is- rejected by the woman's body. Yes, recurrent / spontaneous abortions caused by "lack of communication" between the immunologic system and the embryo.
Dear, an embryo is not a child,

@DUCHESSA We can frame this as being true only if we define what is in the womb as something different than human life. If we define this being as just cells or like a few things put together and dehumanize the child in utero, we feel free to do what we want. In all situations where we define humans as being less than human, we treat them as not sacred. The tactics of all genocides, including abortion, lead to the killing/murdering of people.

@noseenobelieve Turn it over as many times as you want...but i dare you to eat in front of a fetus (in a glass tube of course) and then to tell me how cute it is. No, dear, it is human in the embryological sense but with no independent life.

Your "pro-life agenda" doesn't make any rash on me...and for you to even attempt to force others to think as you do is arrogant ..to say the list.

It is my body! My decision! I'll do everything to have control over my body. It is, simple, a matter of self defense. If your church, religion or god wants to control MY body, they are as good as dead! Fuck them all!

@noseenobelieve Historically, even religions have defined a fetus as non-human. The Catholic Church allowed abortions up until the Civil War before 'quickening'. Judaism did not define a child as a human until its first birthday.
A blob of cells is not, to my mind, a person. I think you must posit the existence of a soul to make your argument. I do not believe in souls and I certainly do not think that a collection of cells is not a person until it has the capacity to live independently of the mother. Otherwise, how is a cancerous tumor not a 'child'. It, too, is a collection of cells growing within the body of a huan.

Infanticide, Genocide, Murder... What’s this a bible study.

Where? In USA? I doubt.

@DUCHESSA in Indiana. When i got my tubes tied my husband had to sign saying it was ok

@pamelab1968 I would have divorced him...get the tubes tied and then marry him again...maybe. Is there also a law that ask the women to sign her OK when the guy wants to chop his ducts?

@Alvinsmama Whoever told you so should have faced malpractice.

@pamelab1968 Since when a man has any right over a woman? Since when a man decides how many kids a woman must have?

If only more felt that way. Taking care of eachother should be a higher priority than degrading someone in a position to need one.

Since you seem to be the only even marginally dissenting opinion here, can you please tell us more? Why are you against it? Are there time constraints on if or how wrong you think it is?

I am against it as a personal choice. Thus "I" would not seek one. It is none of my business if others want to however.

@SCOTT63 I know, I was asking why though. Is it because you think it's a person, because you think it has a soul, etc.

Oh, sorry. I am not sure I buy that souls exist. Otherwise I probably wouldn't be here I guess. Nor do I believe that life begins at birth. But, the part of me that believes a potential life begins at conception makes me not fond of the practice of abortion. I also know there are many legitimate reasons for abortion. My ultimate view is that abortion is a medical decision and the only people ultimately involved are the woman and her Dr. Politicians absolutely have zero authority to get involved in my worldview.

I used to share good Atheist time with Polly Roinstein; she was the head of the Westchester Coalition for legal abortion. Polly always mentioned her chat on abortion with a very well known local senator; he told her "We don't care about the fetus...but we don't want to give women so much power and, at the same time, to lose a campaign issue.

@DUCHESSA What, one of them actually admitted the truth? That it's about power and control? Photos or it didn't happen

@RobAnybody That answer was given to Polly -who passed recently- in 2004.

@DUCHESSA Not disbelieving it, stunned that he'd be so blatant.

@RobAnybody And he said so to Polly about 35 years ago. See, it was very difficult to fool / shut up Polly. great lady.

Never say never!

@zesty Okay, how about impossible?

@OtherPatrick It is easy for a guy to be judgemental.

@zesty How am I being judgemental? I’m not going to stop anyone from having an abortion nor do I believe it should be outlawed. I cannot have one due to being a guy, I would not want a person I was seeing to have one so I do everything I can to prevent it from happening. But, like my original statement, I’m not going to have one.

@OtherPatrick You are right!

Late term abortion is wrong...unless the pregnancy posses a risk for the woman's life.

My body. I abort a pregnancy anytime I want!

In 1983 I was pregnant. I was SO Excited! I was also 25, and fairly newly married. I had just gotten out of the military and joined my husband who was still active duty. At 4.5 months they did a sonogram, which I did not get the results of for a month. The baby had some anomalies, we were being referred to an Air Force Medical Center that had better ultrasound equipment and high risk maternity care. My husband was put on temporary duty to go with me. There they did more ultrasounds, x rays, genetic testing, everything. We were there for a week. The baby had multiple neural tube defects: spina bifida, anencephaly, and the front line didn't close. The danger was if I continued the pregnancy there was danger of miscarriage due to excess amniotic fluid build up caused by the anencephaly. If I went to term and delivered the baby would be born with brain damage due to the anencephaly and spina bifida. We chose to abort, and due to being so far along I had to deliver. The brain detached during birth. The baby also had cleft lip and cleft palate. The stomach, liver, and other organs were protruding from her body. She had NO hope of normal life. IF we went by your preference I would have been forced to carry to term and may have died. Ya know, I'm glad you weren't consulted. I have three healthy daughter and two grand children. Your opinion is worth exactly and precisely nothing when it comes to a body that isn't yours.

@HippieChick58 I don't know if you are addressing me...I don't think so..........If I was there when you decided to abort / deliver i would have supported you all the way.

@DUCHESSA actually I was addressing @Lochowitz6411.

To clarify, if a woman were to have an abortion at 23 weeks, you believe she should be charged with murder?

If the fetus is of a maturity to live on it's own and anyone actively kills/has it killed, that could be murder. The abortion places I've known of go to twelve weeks. As I said, why not prevent, rather than terminate?

Patriarchy.

Why "and the doctor"? If a woman wishes to abort the opinion of the doctor is ONLY a medical one.

@DUCHESSA Here in Alabama women still have to go through a doctor to have an abortion. We haven't progressed to a point where the meds are available OTC.
I didn't mean to imply that a doctor should have the right to prevent a woman from accessing abortion care.

Needless to say the abortion must be performed by a doctor.

???????????????????

"WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON ABORTION ?" on my back - it's hard to do an abortion face down, I would think.

@AtheistInNC - not funny, as anyone who has had an abortion can tell you.

I'm sorry - I didn't think about that before I replied. My apologies.

I understand abortion is physically painful because is a surgery....but no emotionally. No in my opinion. See, I feel is a relief for the woman.

@DUCHESSA I think it depends on the reason and circumstance as to whether it takes an emotional toll on the woman - I know several women who have had abortions. All are older now. One is simply glad - others were unable to conceive and had to adopt or use alternative methods of conception, but were emotionally affected, and one has had problems with depression for years. All had different reasons for their choice. We are all different.

@ThinkKate JMHO...But those women "emotionally affected" are / were so because a matter of brain washing.
See, the moment a woman decides to abort -regardless of the reason- she only wants the moment to be over and start to feel -physically- well again.

Don't you think education would solve a lot?

Totally right. Ask those people to take on all of that or shut up.

@DUCHESSA "Education?" Are you talking about the fact that "contraceptives can/do fail? "How about "men can/do fail us?" How about "we sometimes get carried away and fail ourselves?" Aside from that....what ''education" are you talking about?

@LucyLoohoo About that education that allows a person to reason her decisions...........IAW, everything you said and more. Embryology, Anatomy, Histology, Pathology....also should be part of the info.

Yes ... you should be allowed to have a say.

I personally agree, but before you have sex with a woman, know her well enough to ensure she willl consider your feelings.

that would be true providing she had a say in the sex itself. there are states where it is being proposed that a rapist may decide whether his victim may have an abortion. let's assume the following best-case scenario: a man and a woman have had consensual sex, they're still together, he wants her to have the baby and she doesn't want to have it. that's a tie. who casts the deciding vote? well, the man isn't the one who has to be pregnant for nine months and then give birth, possibly with a c-section. traditionally, he isn't the one who stays home with the resulting baby, either, perhaps sacrificing his career, or his peace of mind. he isn't the one who might suffer post-partum depression. so in this tie, who has the more abiding interest in the pregnancy?

g

@PontifexMarximus I agree in cases were either the couple is in a dedicated relationship or if the sex is intended to produce a (surrogacy ect.). As for casual sex I do not think the man should have any say at all or even awareness of the unless the woman allows it. Ideally she would want to tell the man but in reality with all of the possible litigation ect. i understand why a woman may be better served to just have it aborted or raise it by herself as she wishes.

I see the opposite. The religious right thinks that the unborn should be given every protection imaginable, but would not stoop to help the living. I like to say they believe in the scantily of life from conception up to the moment of birth.

Simply put the deity if he or she is out there refuses to talk to us in a clear and meaningful way. So playing God as you say is our lone purview. Yes I know about the Bible and all of the other holy books. All of which make so little coherent sense they are used for a rainbow of causes and justifications. For me personally playing god I would think is the point right? I mean if this god(God) is out father/mother then as a we adult until we become one? Fun stuff but until God shows up and says here I am then it falls to us wonderfully scary insane apes to do what it will not. Make our own way in a cold and hostile universe.

@Quarm Perhaps the best way to respond is to ask: What have you to offer regarding the big 4 questions: Origin, Morality, Meaning, Destiny. Any coherent belief system must have a clear answer to each of these issues to be worthy of following. If there is something better than God created, is worthy of worship, wrote the Law on our hearts, wants his creation to abide with him, I would be more than willing to study it. So far I have not found anything to supplant: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God. Everything that was made was made through him.

Also, if one approaches scripture from the frame you have given, then it is easily dismissed. However, if one approaches the Bible from the viewpoint that it holds the truth to the 4 big issues, they will find answers there.

Fuck God!